Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00426-011-0346-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Auditory and motor systems interact in processing auditory rhythms. This study investigated the effect of intuitive body movement, such as head nodding or foot tapping, on listeners’ ability to entrain to the pulse of an auditory sequence. A pulse-finding task was employed using an isochronous sequence of tones in which tones were omitted at pseudorandom positions. Musicians and non-musicians identified their subjectively fitting pulse either using periodic body movement or through listening only. The identified pulse was measured subsequently by finger tapping. Movement appeared to assist pulse extraction especially for non-musicians. The chosen pulse tempi tended to be faster with movement. Additionally, movement led to higher synchronization stabilities of the produced pulse along the sequence, regardless of musical training. These findings demonstrated the facilitatory role of body movement in entraining to auditory rhythms and its interaction with musical training.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Figure S1. The illustration of the procedure and the criteria tree for classifying every ‘unstable trial’ into one of the three types: Type 1 – constantly irregular and unstable ITIs; Type 2 – switching between different pulse levels; Type 3 – missing taps or an unusual pause within an otherwise stable tap series. * We assigned the criterion of ‘not more than 2 outlier ITIs’ in a trial to suggest potential missing taps while the pulse series itself could still be maintained. After a cluster of one or two such outliers was identified, we checked the centroid of this outlier cluster and the centroid of the bigger cluster containing the majority of the ITIs. If the ratio between the bigger centroid and the smaller centroid was bigger than 1.5, suggesting that the outlier ITIs were sufficiently different from most of the other ITIs, then the outliers were likely to be ‘accidental mistakes’ within the taps. If not, then the two clusters were not sufficiently different in ITIs, and the whole tap series would be considered irregular as in Type 1. ** If the ITIs in the bigger cluster, without the outlier ITIs, had a CV less than 10%, then it further confirmed that generally stable pulse was produced in this trial, except for the couple of missing taps or longer pauses, thus classified as Type 3. If the ITIs in the bigger cluster still produced a CV bigger than 10%, then the tap series on the whole was not stable, classified as Type 1. *** If both clusters contained more than two items, then we did not consider the possibility of outlier ITIs. Instead, we checked whether the ratio between the bigger centroid and the smaller centroid was between 1.75 - 2.25, which indicated that one cluster centered around twice the ITI as the other cluster. This would then suggest the possibility of taps switching between two pulse levels, which was further verified by the CV of ITIs within each cluster. If both CVs were no greater than 10%, then it showed that equally stable taps were produced at two different pulse levels, thus classified as Type 2. If not, then we rejected the possibility of switching between pulse levels, and classified it as Type 1. (EPS 5240 kb)426_2011_346_MOESM1_ESM.eps
Figure S2. Histogram distribution of the produced pulse tempi as the ratio to the stimulus tempo, in each tempo condition. Each row represents data from one participant group. Only the tempi from stable pulse trials are plotted. Bin width = 5% of each stimulus tempo. (EPS 4956 kb)426_2011_346_MOESM2_ESM.eps
Figure S3. Mean number of stimulus pulse cycles (transformed from RT) as a function of the stimulus tempo, for each participant group. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean. (EPS 3114 kb)426_2011_346_MOESM3_ESM.eps
Arom, S. (1989). Time structure in the music of central Africa: periodicity, meter, rhythm and polyrhythmics. Leonardo, 22, 91–99. CrossRef
Bolton, T. L. (1894). Rhythm. American Journal of Psychology, 6, 145–238. CrossRef
Cooper, G., & Meyer, A. B. (1960). The rhythmic structure of music. London: The University of Chicago Press.
Drewing, K., & Aschersleben, G. (2003). Reduced timing variability during bimanual coupling: a role for sensory information. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 56, 329–350. CrossRef
Franek, M., Mates, J., Radil, T., Beck, K., & Pöppel, E. (1994). Sensorimotor synchronization: motor responses to pseudoregular auditory patterns. Perception & Psychophysics, 55, 204–217. CrossRef
Fujioka, T., Trainor, L. J., Large, E. W., & Ross, B. (2009). Beta and gamma rhythms in human auditory cortex during musical beat processing. Annals of New York Academy of Science, 1169, 89–92. CrossRef
Humble, M. (2002). The development of rhythmic organization in Indian classical music. Unpublished dissertation, University of London.
Iversen, J. R., Patel, A. D., & Ohgushi, K. (2008). Perception of rhythmic grouping depends on auditory experience. Journal of Acoustic Society America, 124(4), 2263–2271. CrossRef
Kornysheva, K., von Cramon, D. Y., Jacobsen, T., & Schubotz, R. I. (2010). Tuning-into the beat: aesthetic appreciation of musical rhythms correlates with a premotor activity boost. Human Brain Mapping, 31, 48–64. PubMed
Large, E. W. (2008). Resonating to musical rhythm: theory and experiment. In S. Grondin (Ed.), The psychology of time (pp. 189–231). United Kingdom: Emerald.
Large, E. W., & Snyder, J. S. (2009). Pulse and meter as neural resonance. Annals of New York Academy of Science, 1169, 46–57. CrossRef
London, J. (2002). Cognitive constraints on metric systems: some observations and hypotheses. Music Perception, 19, 529–550. CrossRef
Moelants, D. (2002). Preferred tempo reconsidered. In C. Stevens, D. Burnham, G. McPherson, E. Schubert, & J. Renwick (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition (pp. 580–583). Sydney.
Patel, A., Iversen, J., Chen, Y., & Repp, B. H. (2005). The influence of metricality and modality on synchronization with a beat. Experimental Brain Research, 163, 226–238. CrossRef
Pecenka, N., & Keller, P. (2009). Auditory pitch imagery and its relationship to musical synchronization. Annals of New York Academy of Science, 1169, 282–286. CrossRef
Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129–154. CrossRef
Repp, B. (2006). Does an auditory distractor sequence affect self-paced tapping. Acta Psychologica, 121(1), 81–107. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.06.006.
Repp, B. H., & Doggett, R. (2006). Tapping to a very slow beat: a comparison of musicians and nonmusicians. Music Perception, 24, 367–376. CrossRef
Repp, B. H., Iversen, J. R., & Patel, A. D. (2008). Tracking an imposed beat within a metrical grid. Music Perception, 26, 1–18. CrossRef
Todd, N. P. M. (1999). Motion in music: a neurobiological perspective. Music Perception, 17, 115–126.
Wing, A. M., & Kristofferson, A. B. (1973). Response delays and the timing of discrete motor responses. Perception & Psychophysics, 14, 5–12. CrossRef
Winkler, I., Háden, G. P., Ladinig, O., Sziller, I., & Honing, H. (2009). Newborn infants detect the beat in music. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 106, 2468–2471. CrossRef
- Body movement enhances the extraction of temporal structures in auditory sequences